Forget ‘cancel culture’—the new buzzword is ‘consequence culture.’
That’s the label some Republican leaders and influential conservatives are embracing in the wake of political activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination. In the past week alone, numerous individuals have been fired for comments about Mr. Kirk deemed insensitive. Notably, ABC even suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show following his remarks, where he accused ‘the MAGA gang’ of mischaracterizing the man charged with Kirk’s murder as a leftist.
This aggressive campaign, spearheaded by Mr. Kirk’s allies and notably encouraged by the White House, with Vice President JD Vance urging citizens to report to employers anyone ‘celebrating’ Kirk’s death, was once commonly referred to as ‘cancel culture.’
For years, conservatives wielded ‘cancel culture’ as a weapon, criticizing the left for attempts to professionally or socially punish individuals over controversial statements or actions.
Now, supporters of Kimmel and others are pointing fingers, accusing the right of adopting the very ‘cancel culture’ tactics they previously condemned. In turn, some Trump loyalists are cleverly rebranding it as ‘consequence culture.’
Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, articulated this new philosophy on X, stating, ‘When a person says something that a ton of people find offensive, rude, dumb in real time and then that person is punished for it, that’s not cancel culture. That is consequences for your actions.’
Mr. Portnoy chose not to elaborate further on his statement via email.
This phrase is rapidly gaining momentum within conservative media. It’s appeared in headlines like National Review’s ‘‘Consequence Culture’ Comes for the Angry Left’ and in posts from influential conservative activists such as Riley Gaines, who declared on X, ‘Cancel culture? No. Consequence culture.’
While many pundits are just now embracing the term, ‘consequence culture’ is far from new, and surprisingly, it wasn’t coined by conservatives.
The phrase first emerged in the late 2010s, initially used in social media campaigns advocating for the removal or ostracism of cultural figures due to insensitive or offensive remarks.
As ‘cancel culture’ became a mainstream term for these public campaigns, many conservatives vehemently opposed it, claiming it stifled free speech and became their rallying cry.
Meredith D. Clark, an associate professor of race and political communication at the University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media, noted, ‘The right made it their brand to talk about resisting being canceled. And I have to give it to them, they are masters of branding.’
In response, those who aimed to hold individuals accountable for offensive actions began to distance themselves from the increasingly politicized ‘cancel culture’ label.
In 2019, Alex Winter, known for ‘Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure,’ tweeted, ‘The term cancel culture is a bad faith fallacy,’ specifically in reference to men in the entertainment industry who faced consequences for alleged sexual misconduct.
He elaborated, ‘There’s only consequence culture. It’s long overdue, and most of the exposed predators have yet to face meaningful consequences.’
This perspective soon found its way into mainstream media discussions.
For instance, in 2021, after former Fox News host Lou Dobbs’ show was canceled due to a defamation lawsuit alleging he spread election conspiracies, CNN’s then-host Brian Stelter famously stated, ‘It is not cancel culture here. It is consequence culture. What are the consequences for riling up people with reckless lies about a democracy that most Americans cherish?’
Similarly, in 2021, Sunny Hostin, co-host of ‘The View,’ drew a parallel when discussing Republican politicians’ attempts to distance themselves from the January 6th insurrection.
On air, Ms. Hostin remarked, ‘We hear so much from the right talking about cancel culture, cancel culture. What they don’t want is a culture of accountability. They don’t want a consequence culture.’
This past summer, even actor George Takei, a well-known liberal commentator, took to Facebook to share a story about a man fired after self-identifying as a ‘fascist’ in a viral YouTube debate. Takei’s accompanying caption echoed the sentiment: ‘Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.’
While freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment, those advocating for dismissals over speech are quick to clarify that their actions align with, rather than contradict, this cherished American liberty.
However, a crucial distinction between how the left and right apply ‘consequence culture’ lies in the enforcers. Most individuals terminated for their comments regarding Mr. Kirk’s murder were disciplined by private organizations, who generally possess the right to do so.
The suspension of Mr. Kimmel’s show, however, suggests pressure from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a government body. The First Amendment explicitly protects citizens’ speech rights from government restriction.
Adrian Daub, a Stanford professor and author of ‘The Cancel Culture Panic: How an American Obsession Went Global,’ sharply distinguished Kimmel’s situation: ‘That’s not cancel culture at all. By what definition of cancel culture is using the levers of state to get a guy fired from his media job ‘cancel culture’? We don’t need the fancy neologism. We know what that is. It’s just an authoritarian crackdown.’
Regardless of its true nature, Mr. Kirk’s proponents have found a term for it—one, ironically, adopted from their political adversaries.